Melhores partes: o indivíduo-ser-ente-criatura me acusando de querer instituir um governo totalitário de esquerda porque acho que os pais não têm direito de controlar a sexualidade dos filhos. Ah, isto: ” A child’s parents do have the right to determine whether or not their child is to be sexually active and what rules they wish to enforce beyond the obvious limits of abuse”. E isto: “Children are not adults and do not have a constitutional right to make sexual choices.”

Young women under the age of 16 are children and still under parental control. They are not adults and cannot nor should not be allowed to make adult decisions.

Plan B is already available to young women 17 and over and it will remain so. What the president did was to not make it available to children 16 and younger without parental consent. If you want your child to have access to Plan B you can still do so if you choose.

Parental rights should be respected. That was the principle Obama was acting on and not merely a cold political calculation as some on the panel claimed.

Parental rights? You think parents should have the right to determine their children’s sexuality? So if the parents are homophobic, they should get to prohibit their child from having sex with people of the same gender? People have a right to develop sexually, free of any kind of coercion, and for many that starts to happen before they’re 17. Even if you think that parents should get to determine when their kids begin their sex lives (which is bullshit), you’re deeply delusional if you think parents can effectively control their children. Not to mention the fact that other forms of contraception (such as condoms) are already available over the counter to anyone. The only difference is that this particular pill is something that only girls take and so it plays into all the fears concerning young women’s sexuality.

“You think parents should have the right to determine their children’s sexuality?”

Non sequitur. I said nothing about sexuality and it has no relevance to the topic at hand.

“if the parents are homophobic”

People have the right to be believe things that I don’t approve of. It is not the right of the state and certainly not my right, to tell other people how they should live or raise their children. That is a basic freedom of all democracies. You are apparently in favor of Soviet style totalitarianism where the state can tell you what you should think and believe. I don’t wish to live in your Leftist fascist state. I’m a liberal. Which means that I believe that I should tolerate everyone’s right to believe what they choose to. Even if I don’t agree.

“they should get to prohibit their child from having sex with people of the same gender?”

If that is what they believe then yes. I also believe in religious freedom even for those who do not feel their children should marry outside of their religion. Would you take away the religious freedom of those with whom you do not agree?

“you’re deeply delusional if you think parents can effectively control their children”

Having had children myself I am not under the illusion that parents can control them at all times. However I do not want the state to dictate to me how to raise my kids. And since I don’t want the state doing that to me I should also not want it doing that to others. Even if that means parents will raise their children in ways I do not approve of.

That is a bedrock freedom of Western civilization.

“it plays into all the fears concerning young women’s sexuality.”

Yes it does. The difference to me is that I am not willing to sacrifice my basic constitutional freedoms on the alter of political correctness. To me being a liberal means that I am required to tolerate the beliefs of others even when it is inconvenient to me to do so. I cannot compromise on that.

It has everything to do with sexuality. The point of forcing young women to inform their parents before buying emergency contraception is to involve them in decisions concerning reproduction *and* sexuality. It is disingenuous to pretend these two issues can be separated when debating young people’s access to contraception. And as far as “You are apparently in favor of Soviet style totalitarianism where the state can tell you what you should think and believe.” uh, no. Just, really, no. People are entitled to their own choices, beliefs and values. I just happen to believe that teenagers are people, too, and every bit as entitled to making decisions about their own lives, bodies and sexualities. Being a parent does not give you absolute control over your child’s life.

“It has everything to do with sexuality.”

No it doesn’t. Children do not have an innate right to have sex. A child’s parents do have the right to determine whether or not their child is to be sexually active and what rules they wish to enforce beyond the obvious limits of abuse. We do not have the right to enforce our sexual mores on others (again, excepting criminal sexual behavior)

“uh, no. Just, really, no”

That was the logical consequence of what you said. You seem to think you have the right to tell other people what their personal sexual morals ought to be. I do not. I am in the gay community and yet I would never approve of the state telling other people they had no right teach their children that homosexuality is immoral.

“I just happen to believe that teenagers are people, too, and every bit as entitled to making decisions about their own lives”

I don’t. Not for 16 year old children and younger, which is the ages we’re talking about here or did you not even bother to inform yourself what the ruling actually said? Children are not adults and do not have a constitutional right to make sexual choices.

“Being a parent does not give you absolute control over your child’s life.”

I never claimed it did. I just don’t think the state should be able to tell me or other parents what is or isn’t right for my child.